Casualty

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a praecipe for writ of summons was deemed to be timely filed as of the date it was initially received by the county prothonotary’s office and the prothonotary’s office did not have the authority to reject the praecipe solely on the basis that it lacked an original signature. 

The plaintiff, a guest at the resort, was injured while attempting to use an inflatable structure and waterslide. Six days before expiration of the applicable two-year statute of limitation, counsel for the plaintiffs mailed an electronically signed copy of a praecipe for writ of summons through express, one-day delivery. According to the tracking information, the praecipe was delivered the next day to the county’s prothonotary’s office. The praecipe sat in the prothonotary’s office for five days with no action. On the day the statute of limitation expired, the prothonotary’s office called counsel to advise that the praecipe was rejected since it lacked an original signature, as required by local rules of court. Counsel prepared a hand-signed praecipe and overnighted it to the prothonotary’s office. The hand-signed praecipe was then accepted by the prohtonotary’s office and docketed. After the pleadings were closed, the defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the praecipe for writ of summons was not accepted for filing until the day after the statute of limitation had expired. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 205.1, documents mailed to the prothonotary are deemed filed when received by the appropriate officer. The Superior Court ruled that “a document is filed when received by the prothonotary, regardless of when it is later time-stamped.” As such, the Superior Court found that “a legal document is deemed to be received, and therefore filed, when it passes through the doorway of the prothonotary’s office.” The Superior Court determined that the plaintiffs’ praecipe was timely filed when it was initially received by the prothonotary prior to the expiration of the statute of limitation. 

The Superior Court also ruled that there is no requirement in Rule 205.1 that an attorney must provide a handwritten signature on a pleading. Instead, the Superior Court found that “pursuant to Rule 76, a ‘signature’ for purposes of a civil action includes a ‘computer generated signature’ and a ‘signature created . . . by electronic means’ by the signer.” 

The Superior Court further ruled that pursuant to Rule 205.2, the prothonotary did not have the power to reject pleadings or other papers that complied with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The Superior Court reasoned that “while local courts of common pleas have the power to formulate and adopt their own rules of practice and procedure and to enforce them, if the local rule conflicts with a statewide rule of procedure, the local rule is invalid.” The Superior Court determined that as there was no suggestion that the plaintiffs’ praecipe failed to comply with the statewide Rules of Civil Procedure, the prothonotary should have accepted the praecipe for filing and did not have the authority to reject the praecipe on the basis that it lacked an original signature. The Superior Court ruled that the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings and vacated the order. 

---

 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}